help: javascript and blazer 4.0 (treo 650)

below is a simple dynamic option list. it doesn't seem to work on the
treo650, but works fine in pc-based browsers. can anyone give me some
insights into what i'm doing wrong? very much appreciated.

-4MLA1FN

------------------------

<html>
<head>
<title>dynamic link test</title>
<script type="text/javascript">
var store = new Array();
store['fb0'] = new Array('sub-foobar 0');
store['fb1'] = new Array('sub-foobar 1');

function populate() {
var box0 = document.dl.option0;
var box1 = document.dl.option1;

if (box0.selectedIndex != 0){
var number = box0.options[box0.selectedIndex].value;
var list = store[number];
box1.options.length = 0;
for(i=0;i<list.length;i++) {
box1.options[i] = new Option(list[i], list[i]);
}
} else {
box1.options.length = 0;
box1.options[0] = new Option("<-- Select option", "0");
}
}
</script>
</head>
<body>
<FORM name="dl" action="" method="post">
option 0:<br>
<SELECT SIZE="1" NAME="option0" onChange="populate()"
onkeyup="populate()">
<OPTION VALUE="0" >Select option</OPTION>
<OPTION VALUE="fb0">foobar 0</OPTION>
<OPTION VALUE="fb1">foobar 1</OPTION>
</SELECT>

<p></p>

option 1:<br>
<SELECT SIZE="1" NAME="option1">
<OPTION VALUE="0" selected><-- Select option</OPTION>
</SELECT>
</FORM>
</body>
</html>

4MLA1FN

4MLA1FN wrote:[color=blue]
> below is a simple dynamic option list. it doesn't seem to work on the
> treo650, but works fine in pc-based browsers. can anyone give me some
> insights into what i'm doing wrong? very much appreciated.[/color]

Nothing *terribly* wrong in your code. My best guess would be about
this line:
[color=blue]
> box1.options[0] = new Option("<-- Select option", "0");[/color]

Usually "full support for all standards" is an ad crap and the real
mobil device abilities are much more humble.

Try the old way instead just to see if any reaction:

box1.options[0].text = 'New text';
box1.options[0].value = 'New value';

If it works by any chance than you stoke in a fancy mix of Netscape
JavaScript 1.3 and partly-curly implemented 2005 technologies (the
regular story). But maybe I'm just thinking too bad on Blazer. Check it
anyway.

<http://web.archive.org/web/20040827051054/devedge.netscape.com/library/manuals/2000/javascript/1.3/reference/>

4MLA1FN said:[color=blue]
>
>below is a simple dynamic option list. it doesn't seem to work on the
>treo650, but works fine in pc-based browsers. can anyone give me some
>insights into what i'm doing wrong? very much appreciated.[/color]

I don't believe the Blazer DOM supports the dynamic creation of
Option objects (or any other form elements).

On 2 Nov 2005 15:53:25 -0800, "VK" <schools_ring@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Try the old way instead just to see if any reaction:
>
>box1.options[0].text = 'New text';
>box1.options[0].value = 'New value';[/color]

hey, thanks alot for the response. i tried it in both places in the
script with no change. what a scam; palm says blazer 4.0 is 1.5
compliant. frustrating.

4MLA1FN

On 2 Nov 2005 15:55:58 -0800, Lee <REM0VElbspamtrap@cox.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I don't believe the Blazer DOM supports the dynamic creation of
>Option objects (or any other form elements).[/color]

thanks lee. is there a site that'll tell me what blazer 4.0 actually
supports? palm advertises it as javascript 1.5 compliant but i gather
this isn't exactly true. :(

4MLA1FN

4MLA1FN said the following on 11/3/2005 12:34 AM:
[color=blue]
> On 2 Nov 2005 15:55:58 -0800, Lee <REM0VElbspamtrap@cox.net> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>I don't believe the Blazer DOM supports the dynamic creation of
>>Option objects (or any other form elements).[/color]
>
>
> thanks lee. is there a site that'll tell me what blazer 4.0 actually
> supports? palm advertises it as javascript 1.5 compliant but i gather
> this isn't exactly true. :([/color]

http://www.palm.com/us/products/smar...650/blazer.epl

Says it is 1.5 compliant but obviously it isn't.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

4MLA1FN wrote:[color=blue]
> On 2 Nov 2005 15:55:58 -0800, Lee <REM0VElbspamtrap@cox.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I don't believe the Blazer DOM supports the dynamic creation of
>> Option objects (or any other form elements).[/color]
>
> thanks lee. is there a site that'll tell me what blazer 4.0 actually
> supports? palm advertises it as javascript 1.5 compliant but i gather
> this isn't exactly true. :([/color]

You have discovered that support for a particular version of JavaScript
does not guarantee (or even infer) support for any particular version of
the DOM.

--
Rob

4MLA1FN said:[color=blue]
>
>On 2 Nov 2005 15:55:58 -0800, Lee <REM0VElbspamtrap@cox.net> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>I don't believe the Blazer DOM supports the dynamic creation of
>>Option objects (or any other form elements).[/color]
>
>thanks lee. is there a site that'll tell me what blazer 4.0 actually
>supports? palm advertises it as javascript 1.5 compliant but i gather
>this isn't exactly true. :([/color]

Creation of dynamic content has nothing to do with Javascript version
compliance. That's a matter of what DOM any particular browser makes
available to manipulate *with* Javascript 1.5.

Lee wrote:[color=blue]
> Creation of dynamic content has nothing to do with Javascript version
> compliance. That's a matter of what DOM any particular browser makes
> available to manipulate *with* Javascript 1.5.[/color]

IMHO that's a lawyer game to read it this way. JavaScript is the tool
to manipulate the data display on a web page (or retrieve/prepare data
to display). Otherwise why in the name it's needed for? To calculate
cosinus/tangens on the background? If you say to your users "fully
JavaScript 1.5 compliant" they read it as "you can do with our
implementation exactly what you used to do while designing regular
page".

The "proper reading" (however proper it *is* by itself) is alike
super-brevier sh** added in your contract; or a "super discounted"
appliance you have to pay separately for the battery; or other
commercial tricks.

On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 06:49:12 GMT, RobG <rgqld@iinet.net.au> wrote:
[color=blue]
>You have discovered that support for a particular version of JavaScript
>does not guarantee (or even infer) support for any particular version of
>the DOM.[/color]

thanks robg. i had to look up what "DOM" meant and i agree with you.
javascript and DOM are independent creatures. now i'm pissed at palm
for their misleading advertising. what's the legal definition of
"compliant" anyway? :)

anyone know if the browser on (bite my tongue) windows mobile
smartphones are any better?? (the treo 700w will be out in few
months.)

On 4 Nov 2005 08:22:42 -0800, "VK" <schools_ring@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>If you say to your users "fully
>JavaScript 1.5 compliant" they read it as "you can do with our
>implementation exactly what you used to do while designing regular
>page".[/color]

yep, i agree. their advertisting had not footnotes to include fine
print like "javascript support limited by our semi-castrated DOM".
palm screwed up on this one. hey, let's start a class-action suit.
if they can do it for the nano, then surely we can get one also. :)

VK said the following on 11/4/2005 11:22 AM:
[color=blue]
> Lee wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Creation of dynamic content has nothing to do with Javascript version
>>compliance. That's a matter of what DOM any particular browser makes
>>available to manipulate *with* Javascript 1.5.[/color]
>
>
> IMHO that's a lawyer game to read it this way.[/color]

Thats why some people don't have a lot of respect for other peoples
"IMHO". In this case, your opinion is wrong.

[color=blue]
> JavaScript is the tool to manipulate the data display on a web page
> (or retrieve/prepare data to display).[/color]

That is about 87 million kazillion miles from the total truth.
[color=blue]
> Otherwise why in the name it's needed for?[/color]

If you have to ask that question, you have no clue about answering the
first question.
[color=blue]
> To calculate cosinus/tangens on the background? If you say to your
> users "fully JavaScript 1.5 compliant" they read it as "you can do with our
> implementation exactly what you used to do while designing regular
> page".[/color]

Then they do not understand scripting, the DOM, and the difference in
the two.
[color=blue]
> The "proper reading" (however proper it *is* by itself) is alike
> super-brevier sh** added in your contract; or a "super discounted"
> appliance you have to pay separately for the battery; or other
> commercial tricks.[/color]

Only in the minds of people who don't understand the difference.

You can update the JS Engine in IE seperately from the browser. Does
that mean if a person using IE4 updates the JS Engine to JS5.6, that it
should also update the DOM? It doesn't because they are seperate entities.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

4MLA1FN said the following on 11/4/2005 2:35 PM:
[color=blue]
> On 4 Nov 2005 08:22:42 -0800, "VK" <schools_ring@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>If you say to your users "fully
>>JavaScript 1.5 compliant" they read it as "you can do with our
>>implementation exactly what you used to do while designing regular
>>page".[/color]
>
>
> yep, i agree. their advertisting had not footnotes to include fine
> print like "javascript support limited by our semi-castrated DOM".[/color]

The DOM support was lacking, not the javascript support. The DOM and
scripting are entirely seperate issues.
[color=blue]
> palm screwed up on this one. hey, let's start a class-action suit.
> if they can do it for the nano, then surely we can get one also. :)[/color]

That depends on what you define as "screwed up". The claim can actually
be 100% correct if the JS engine is indeed 1.5 compatible. It says
nothing about the DOM that it exposes.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

> VK wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
> > JavaScript is the tool to manipulate the data display on a web page
> > (or retrieve/prepare data to display).[/color][/color]

Randy Webb wrote:[color=blue]
> That is about 87 million kazillion miles from the total truth.[/color]

VK wrote:
Just read the last 100-1000-5000 posts in this new group and check what
are people doing and what are they asking about. Unless of course you
think that clj attracts only "non-correct" people exclusively.
[color=blue]
> VK wrote:[color=green]
> > Otherwise why in the name it's needed for?[/color][/color]

Randy Webb wrote:[color=blue]
> If you have to ask that question, you have no clue about answering the
> first question.[/color]

These were rhetorical questions. I know the answers.

VK wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
> > To calculate cosinus/tangens on the background? If you say to your
> > users "fully JavaScript 1.5 compliant" they read it as "you can do with our
> > implementation exactly what you used to do while designing regular
> > page".[/color][/color]

Randy Webb wrote:[color=blue]
> Then they do not understand scripting, the DOM, and the difference in
> the two.[/color]

VK wrote:
They do understand that does good software and bad software mean.[color=blue][color=green]
> > The "proper reading" (however proper it *is* by itself) is alike
> > super-brevier sh** added in your contract; or a "super discounted"
> > appliance you have to pay separately for the battery; or other
> > commercial tricks.[/color][/color]

Randy Webb wrote:[color=blue]
> Only in the minds of people who don't understand the difference.[/color]

You really should be a used car salesman: you would make a career! :-)
I envisage you selling cars w/o motors and motors w/o cars for the
price of the full vehicle. You have a talent to stay strong in your
arguments no matter what. Unfortunately "non-correct" customers seem do
not want to eat your arguments (read the thread).
;-)

VK said the following on 11/4/2005 5:56 PM:[color=blue][color=green]
>>VK wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>JavaScript is the tool to manipulate the data display on a web page
>>>(or retrieve/prepare data to display).[/color][/color]
>
>
> Randy Webb wrote:
>[color=green]
>>That is about 87 million kazillion miles from the total truth.[/color]
>
>
> VK wrote:
> Just read the last 100-1000-5000 posts in this new group and check what
> are people doing and what are they asking about. Unless of course you
> think that clj attracts only "non-correct" people exclusively.
>[/color]

Your reasoning that the posts in this group are indicative of the 100%
uses of JS are flawed. Javascript can do a *lot* more than manipulate
data display on a webpage.
[color=blue]
> VK wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>To calculate cosinus/tangens on the background? If you say to your
>>>users "fully JavaScript 1.5 compliant" they read it as "you can do with our
>>>implementation exactly what you used to do while designing regular
>>>page".[/color][/color]
>
>
> Randy Webb wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Then they do not understand scripting, the DOM, and the difference in
>>the two.[/color]
>
>
> VK wrote:
> They do understand that does good software and bad software mean.[/color]

But the reason it is bad software is not what you are saying it is. It
is being said that the reason it is bad software is that it doesn't have
JS1.5 compatability when it does. The reason it is bad software (if it
is) is because of the DOM (or lack thereof) that it exposes to that
scripting.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>The "proper reading" (however proper it *is* by itself) is alike
>>>super-brevier sh** added in your contract; or a "super discounted"
>>>appliance you have to pay separately for the battery; or other
>>>commercial tricks.[/color][/color]
>
>
> Randy Webb wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Only in the minds of people who don't understand the difference.[/color]
>
>
> You really should be a used car salesman: you would make a career! :-)[/color]

Nah, I tried it once. I was too honest about things, as I am now.
[color=blue]
> I envisage you selling cars w/o motors and motors w/o cars for the
> price of the full vehicle. You have a talent to stay strong in your
> arguments no matter what. Unfortunately "non-correct" customers seem do
> not want to eat your arguments (read the thread).[/color]

It is not that hard to have a strong argument when I am right. But I
would envisage you as selling cars with high interest rates and then
saying the car (after the sale) was a bad car because of it.

I still have not said it was a good product. I am saying the reasons you
are using to claim it is bad software are plain wrong.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

help: javascript and blazer 4.0 (treo 650)

re: help: javascript and blazer 4.0 (treo 650)

re: help: javascript and blazer 4.0 (treo 650)

re: help: javascript and blazer 4.0 (treo 650)

re: help: javascript and blazer 4.0 (treo 650)

re: help: javascript and blazer 4.0 (treo 650)

re: help: javascript and blazer 4.0 (treo 650)

re: help: javascript and blazer 4.0 (treo 650)

re: help: javascript and blazer 4.0 (treo 650)

re: help: javascript and blazer 4.0 (treo 650)

re: help: javascript and blazer 4.0 (treo 650)

re: help: javascript and blazer 4.0 (treo 650)

re: help: javascript and blazer 4.0 (treo 650)

re: help: javascript and blazer 4.0 (treo 650)

re: help: javascript and blazer 4.0 (treo 650)

Similar JavaScript / Ajax / DHTML bytes

/bytes/development

/bytes/it

/bytes/about